There are lots and lots of people on this board who call Android a second-rate mobile OS, claim that Windows is secondary to Mac OS, can't possibly conceive of how it's a benefit to be able to change out your battery with a spare in a phone, etc. etc. etc.

You do realise that all of these are respectable opinions to hold, don't you?

I think so. But I think there's a valid distinction between "I don't find these features to be useful," or "I find Android to be a second-rate knockoff", and "I don't think you should find these features useful," or "if you buy an Android phone, you've made a bad purchasing decision." (Not saying you fall on the wrong side of the distinction, just trying to clarify what in particular bugged me about rtechie's post above.)

What I'm saying is that, for a personal purchase at least, the reason you most likely purchased it, all else being equal, is because you considered it to be the best. I assume that that is the reason why most people on this board made each of their purchases. That's why I could really care less about other's decisions in terms of enjoying my own.

There are lots and lots of people on this board who call Android a second-rate mobile OS, claim that Windows is secondary to Mac OS, can't possibly conceive of how it's a benefit to be able to change out your battery with a spare in a phone, etc. etc. etc.

You do realise that all of these are respectable opinions to hold, don't you?

I think so. But I think there's a valid distinction between "I don't find these features to be useful," or "I find Android to be a second-rate knockoff", and "I don't think you should find these features useful," or "if you buy an Android phone, you've made a bad purchasing decision." (Not saying you fall on the wrong side of the distinction, just trying to clarify what in particular bugged me about rtechie's post above.)

What I'm saying is that, for a personal purchase at least, the reason you most likely purchased it, all else being equal, is because you considered it to be the best. I assume that that is the reason why most people on this board made each of their purchases. That's why I could really care less about other's decisions in terms of enjoying my own.

There are lots and lots of people on this board who call Android a second-rate mobile OS, claim that Windows is secondary to Mac OS, can't possibly conceive of how it's a benefit to be able to change out your battery with a spare in a phone, etc. etc. etc.

You do realise that all of these are respectable opinions to hold, don't you?

Of course the opinions are all respectable - everyone gets to have one and opinions aren't required to match anyone else's... Or even match reality, if that's how someone feels.

It's the part where someone expresses an opinion - like mine with removable batteries - and someone else comes in and challenges that opinion with derogation or one-ups like "I've moved on from that inconvenience."

That's just rude.

And it's even worse when someone attempts to build an argument that their preferences are superior to someone else's. It's called supremacy, and it's a blight on argumentation.

Politely put, someone might say: "Well, I find that to be an inconvenience. I know you don't, and that's fine - but I prefer it this way."

Rtechie and the examples above are all derogatory to those on the other side of the opinion fence - needlessly and unprovoked.

Funktron, it's not rude at all. This kind of good-spirited jostling is playful, part of the mystery of being a human. Rude is when someone intervenes using expletives because someone dared to challenge them.

If I walk up to someone and say: "Hey, no offense, but your shirt is hideous!" Even if I'm smiling and laughing and mean it as a joke, I don't get to claim that as a defense if I piss someone off.

Not that yours in this vein were specifically terrible or anything or to be compared directly to, say, ben's - but really, it's not for you to decide what is rude or not.

Socially, making jokes can backfire, and frankly, if you're the initiator, it's on you if they do.

Quote:

This kind of good-spirited jostling is playful

It can be, but again - "I'm just playing around" doesn't mend hurt feelings or tempers going frayed.

Quote:

part of the mystery of being a human.

lol whu?

Quote:

Rude is when someone intervenes using expletives because someone dared to challenge them.

Sure, that can be considered rude - it's going to depend on the people in the discussion and the topic and feelings about said discussion, though.

Lots of people are not offended and do not not find expletives to be rude. Lots do. That's life. Learning to feel out what a person finds acceptable is a solid social skill to possess.

Two things, though:

1) "Intervene"? If two people are discussing something, there's nobody intervening.2) If someone is "challenging" someone else's personal preferences and wants/opinions on something simply because they like something different... Good luck with that, especially if the topic matter is not dropped by the person doing the challenging and that person continues to crack jokes even after the other person has made it clear in whatever fashion that they're not in the joking mood or not in the mood to hear someone tell them their preferences aren't up to snuff.

It can be, but again - "I'm just playing around" doesn't mend hurt feelings or tempers going frayed.

The day you can make your mind up whether you're going to be Aggressive Funk or Sanctimonious Funk rather than oscillating between the two dependent upon either your mood or rhetorical purpose, I think you get to lecture other people on how to behave. I don't think you can go through your "Shut the fuck up" phase, as you were just a few days ago, and then whip out your white hat and start lecturing people on not giving offense without looking like a complete fucking hypocrite.

If you think smartphones are being used to replace computers you are nto being honest. And if you think tablets are replacing computers for anyone with anything close to non-trivial usage is also stretching it.The people who are ditching computers for tablets weren't using their computers for much to begin with.

Probably true, but let's be honest - most consumers don't. Facebook and bill paying. My friend's mom almost exclusively uses her Touchpad for those duties now.

I don't know about "most consumers". THere certainly is a segment, I don't think it is accurate to claim a majority have such little demands.

If you think smartphones are being used to replace computers you are nto being honest. And if you think tablets are replacing computers for anyone with anything close to non-trivial usage is also stretching it.The people who are ditching computers for tablets weren't using their computers for much to begin with.

It's not about replacing, it's additive. The things one did once *only* with a traditional PC has fragmented - you can do some with your smartphone, more with your small tablet, even more with your large tablet, even more with your tablet + peripheral, and everything with your tPC (but not as flexibly, comfortably, or simply). And not everyone needs to do the more advanced and complex stuff that tPC requires, especially at all times.... but most importantly, "computer" isn't a yes/no thing, computerness lies along a spectrum. I keep saying this, and it's still true. If you can't accept this, *you're* not being honest.

That's what's going on in computing right now, and it's why the Windows-dominant era is pretty much over.

I agree about spectrum. and certainly a "full PC" isn't required all the time.

I fail to see how the "windows-dominant era is over". Which other computer (even including phones and tablets) sells more per year? And we are just now really getting Windows on tablets "for real". Windows coudl end up dominanting tablets over the next decade and then what?

But I don't think that's true. Where are the posts saying that everybody should be buying Macs, and people buying PCs are wasting their money? I'm prepared to retract this assertion if you can point me to a couple of good, specific examples, but this really seems like a one-way street.

Oh no---not wasting their money. THey don't care about quality. And several people have said Macs would be better for most people. And if they woudl actually try them they would pic them over Wintel. and those that don't like the design are just stupid and don't understand that you get what you pay for (god I love that one, it is so full of shit). it seems like a one way street because you gloss over the other way because you agree with it.

But I don't think that's true. Where are the posts saying that everybody should be buying Macs, and people buying PCs are wasting their money? I'm prepared to retract this assertion if you can point me to a couple of good, specific examples, but this really seems like a one-way street.

Oh no---not wasting their money. THey don't care about quality. And several people have said Macs would be better for most people. And if they woudl actually try them they would pic them over Wintel. and those that don't like the design are just stupid and don't understand that you get what you pay for (god I love that one, it is so full of shit). it seems like a one way street because you gloss over the other way because you agree with it.

But I don't think that's true. Where are the posts saying that everybody should be buying Macs, and people buying PCs are wasting their money? I'm prepared to retract this assertion if you can point me to a couple of good, specific examples, but this really seems like a one-way street.

Oh no---not wasting their money. THey don't care about quality. And several people have said Macs would be better for most people. And if they woudl actually try them they would pic them over Wintel. and those that don't like the design are just stupid and don't understand that you get what you pay for (god I love that one, it is so full of shit). it seems like a one way street because you gloss over the other way because you agree with it.

Written like an impeccable partisan.

No--it happens. I know it happens both ways. I get what he is saying and yes it happens.

1. Apple have a bigger share of a smaller pie, but still decreasing sales year on year. Could be because of the Retina update, but I do see a lot of "since I got my iPad I hardly use my Macbook anymore..." type postings on the web. Anecdotal, but it makes sense that the Mac is a casualty of iPad cannibalisation.2. Unsure about affect of the retina updates on Mac sales - if they're done in a similar manner to the Macbook Pro (i.e. priced above the non-retina line instead of replacing it) it might not be a large boost, but definitely know a lot of people waitin' on the new iMacs. Later this month?3. Lenovo doing well - who would have thought? The Thinkpad line is big in business of course, so maybe the growth is due to this. My company updated our computers this year. Lenovo's growth has of course been at the expense of HP who have no idea what they're doing right now. Didn't think the Ideapads had much mindshare at all. They look decent though (and come in quite cheap).4.Windows 8: an uptick in Q4 sales of course, but won't stem the tide of falling sales. We know the PC has reached saturation, but I do wonder how much of an effect the longevity of PCs has on these numbers. At the moment, you can justify replacing a smartphone and tablet once every year (or every two years) much easier than you can with a PC (typically has a life span of 3-5 years).

Seriously I'm interested in hearing a rational explanation (for example) the Lenovo Tablet 2 or shouldn't be in the "traditional PC market". I have a non-rational explanation - that soooomebody has swallowed the "Post PC" koolaid whole so has to twist the facts to suit the narrative - but that'd be uncharitable. This is me being charitable.

About Mac sales being cannabilized by the iPad: Tim Cook has specifically noted that this is exactly what's happening, in previous earnings calls.

With a smile on his face I bet.

In all the post-PC, trucks and cars business I still don't see the iPad as a car. It could do with lifting some of the app sharing features from others so the OS works better for more advanced tasks. I like that they added the ability to upload photos on Safari. More of this to fill the gaps and minimise the cases where I would have to use a PC.

Any word on what OEM pricing for Windows RT is going to be? I doubt OEMs will be able to churn out competitive tablets on full Windows at around $100 a pop. It seems Microsoft may be trying to make up for lower sales revenue by being all 'services based' and moving to subscription pricing.

It's actually a bit adorable you think the system builder OEM price is global across all OEMs. Yes yes that's right, Dell and the screwdriver shop down the road pay the exact same price per OEM license despite the massive difference in volume.

It's actually a bit adorable you think the system builder OEM price is global across all OEMs. Yes yes that's right, Dell and the screwdriver shop down the road pay the exact same price per OEM license despite the massive difference in volume.

Seriously I'm interested in hearing a rational explanation (for example) the Lenovo Tablet 2 or shouldn't be in the "traditional PC market". I have a non-rational explanation - that soooomebody has swallowed the "Post PC" koolaid whole so has to twist the facts to suit the narrative - but that'd be uncharitable. This is me being charitable.

I'm fairly certain that we've had this discussion before. We've gone over multiple times what is and is not a PC. There is in fact a spectrum of devices from small handheld iPod touches up to gargantuan 12 CPU systems. What Windows 8 specifically RT brings to the table is more nontraditional iPad like and iPod touch like devices. The surface tablets are really PCs with detachable keyboards. The more exotic two screen Windows tablets are of similar ilk except they have a second screen that converts to a soft keyboard. The definition of PC is vague in this case because we have to consider the fact that android and iOS increase in capability every year and the ARM system-on-a-chip platforms increase in performance as fast as the Atom does.

Seriously I'm interested in hearing a rational explanation (for example) the Lenovo Tablet 2 or shouldn't be in the "traditional PC market". I have a non-rational explanation - that soooomebody has swallowed the "Post PC" koolaid whole so has to twist the facts to suit the narrative - but that'd be uncharitable. This is me being charitable.

it's not that it doesn't count, but the Lenovo Tablet 2 isn't a traditional PC, and that's relevant. It can be used as a tPC, or as a tablet, which makes it competitive (or uncompetitive, as the case may be) against a different class of devices - i.e. iPads. My point here is not trying to box these hybrid devices into some new category, but to point out the categories are quickly becoming hopelessly blurred, and computing devices across the spectrum compete with one another, in complex and different ways.

The whole point of W8, which is to spur non-traditional (i.e. tablet and tabletesque) FFs, is to drive adoption of the new Windows, Modern. Modern is not a traditional GUI, it's a touch-first GUI. The war between the touch-first/centric platforms is ascendent.

I'm fairly certain that we've had this discussion before. We've gone over multiple times what is and is not a PC.

We've had me explaining over and over and you cats indulging in massive bad faith sophistry yeah, so instead of describing a PC with touch as "an iPad like device" how about explaining the exact technical difference between a Windows 8 PC in a tablet formfactor and a Windows 8 PC in a laptop so I can work out how the "traditional PC market" is going to shrink despite Windows 8 expanding the potential market of PCs.

it's not that it doesn't count, but the Lenovo Tablet 2 isn't a traditional PC, and that's relevant. It can be used as a tPC, or as a tablet, which makes it competitive (or uncompetitive, as the case may be) against a different class of devices

That's stupid. Every time a new formfactor comes along - portable, laptop, HTPC, SFF - it just gets lumped into the "traditional PC" market share. Who give a fuck if there's a competing device? Jesus christ you could argue that if someone in the 80's fired up Word on a PC it was competing against a typewriter so was a nontraditional market with that load of twaddle. I'm happy to be corrected if you can come up with why a tablet FF is new and groundbreaking in ways the laptop wasn't but this seems like wanky iPad exceptionalism and nothing more.

I'm happy to be corrected if you can come up with why a tablet FF is new and groundbreaking in ways the laptop wasn't but this seems like wanky iPad exceptionalism and nothing more.

Because these tablet FFs are best-suited to running what amounts to a new platform. Modern is completely different, and Modern apps look and work completely different. It requires apps to be redesigned and rewritten. They are starting from scratch.

This is - hello?! - about as new and groundbreaking as it gets talking about platform contention!

What confuses and muddles the matter is that Modern is tied to traditional Windows, and it's unclear just who will be using what for what purposes and on what devices. And I expect the two to stay tied together for a long time, even longer than Apple's "Classic." But make no mistake, Modern is Microsoft's way forward.

re iPad exceptionalism - what does that even mean? To pay attention to the tablet market that's growing at a dramatic rate, where the heart of activity is right now in the industry (along with smartphones), which spurred Microsoft to dramatically reinvent Windows, one of their foundational strengths for over twenty years, on an accelerated timeline, and will almost certainly exceed traditional PC sales in the next two years, is.... "exceptionalism"?

'iPad exceptionalism' is re-spin of the 'gadgets' attack ... ie Macs are marginal, Apple makes gadgets, iPads are gadgets, real computers run Windows, real tablets run Windows which makes them real computers, real men use real tablets which are real computers running Windows, etc, etc ... and ignoring: (wider) PC market is changing dramatically, Windows is changing dramatically as a consequence (more so than as a driver).

Mini is 197x197x36mm or 1.39 litres. You linked to Wesena at 197x197x75mm or 2.76 litres and Hebey at 200x225x56mm or 2.25 litres, and so on. So I'm not seeing 'exact same size' ... I'm seeing 'larger' ... and I'm not seeing 'much better expandability: no Thunderbolt, and no PCI slots (obviously, in those form factors) to compensate. Looks like it's 'worse' expandability to me. Something I missed?

You might notice the optical slot on that Wesena, it's modeled after the older Mac Mini with the disc drive. The Wesena is slightly smaller than the original Mac Mini.

There are very few Thunderbolt peripherals, just a few videocapture devices. As far as I'm aware, the only real way at present to use Thunderbolt for expansion is to buy this expensive expansion chassis or this ExpressCard adapter. External hard drives don't count.

I can't seem to find anything that looks exactly like the the new Mac Mini (which is basically nano ITX) which also has Core i5, This comes closest, it's only a bit bigger (1.54 litres). This Giada is actually smaller (0.77 liters) but costs only a bit less (I found it for $550) and looks nothing like the Mini. The OEM system has PCI Express AND 2 mini-PCI Express slots, which is pretty impressive.

So I didn't find anything exactly identical, but I came really close.

Carrotee wrote:

and really don't want a box you have to hide somewhere,

You forgot "and are willing to pay A LOT more for that". In every other way all-in-ones (this is beyond the iMac) are inferior. I think people that care this much about asthetics (in this sense) are extremely rare, less than 1% of users. This is validated by the fact that all-in-ones sell very poorly.

The only reason 99% of customers buy iMacs is because Apple doesn't sell a real desktop.

Not to your original claim, which was 'exact same size' with 'much better expandability'.

rtechie wrote:

Carrotee wrote:

and really don't want a box you have to hide somewhere,

You forgot "and are willing to pay A LOT more for that". In every other way all-in-ones (this is beyond the iMac) are inferior. I think people that care this much about asthetics (in this sense) are extremely rare, less than 1% of users. This is validated by the fact that all-in-ones sell very poorly.

The only reason 99% of customers buy iMacs is because Apple doesn't sell a real desktop.

You are letting your own preferences and prejudices run away with you. AIO's cost more/don't do well in price-sensitive markets/don't offer expandability/flexibility vs three-box and so on are all givens. And 'AIO demand = % of total desktop market based on actual sales data' is very defensible.

But you don't have evidence that, among Apple's market demographic, the same assumptions hold (anecdotal evidence, and the fact that Apple manifestly don't think it's worth their while to meet that putative demand also point the other way, but aren't definitive). People that value the aesthetics/style/convenience/etc of AIO may be a smaller proportion for total desktop market, but equating that to 1% of Apple desktop market is using a number you've just pulled out of your arse.

Seriously--this has been already pointed out. IT is WW numbers, not US that ist he main point.

Sorry, my mistake.

But if you take last year's 4.89m Macs sold out of last year's Gartner figures of 95.44m PCs sold, you get 5.12% market share for Q3Y11.

If you project the same decline of 6.1% worldwide (yes, I know, a naive projection), you get Apple selling 4.59m Macs worldwide this year. 4.59m out of Gartner figures of 87.50m PCs sold still gives them an increased market share of 5.24% Q3Y12.

So the real question is, who's projections do you trust?

Or I guess we can wait until October 25th to see who is right and who is dead.

Seriously--this has been already pointed out. IT is WW numbers, not US that ist he main point.

Sorry, my mistake.

But if you take last year's 4.89m Macs sold out of last year's Gartner figures of 95.44m PCs sold, you get 5.12% market share for Q3Y11.

If you project the same decline of 6.1% worldwide (yes, I know, a naive projection), you get Apple selling 4.59m Macs worldwide this year. 4.59m out of Gartner figures of 87.50m PCs sold still gives them an increased market share of 5.24% Q3Y12.

So the real question is, who's projections do you trust?

Or I guess we can wait until October 25th to see who is right and who is dead.

The real question is if Apple went up, stayed same, went down. For Venture to be correct (though some waffle room is there I suppose if you spin it) they would have to go down, and then the question is if they went down enough to matter.

I would suggest using the 91mil figure from last year as it would seem to be the most "fair" comparison. They clearly adjust laster, show it should be the first released numbers compared.